Thai Military, Southern Rebels Must Agree on Rules of Engagement

Don Pathan
BenarNews

Yala, Thailand

Separatist insurgents recently hijacked a double-decker tour bus and set it on fire in Thailand’s Deep South, after escorting the passengers off.

The incident jolted security officials in the region, where the military had boasted about winning hearts and minds of the predominantly Malay Muslim population.

The military claimed as well that hundreds, and possibly thousands of militants, were itching to put down their arms through a government amnesty program known as Bring People Home.

Motorbike bomb killed three in an open market in Yala, Thailand, on Jan 22, 2018. 

The attack in December irked policymakers in Bangkok. It also exposed questions about security along the only road linking Yala – one of the three conflict-ridden provinces in the south – to Betong, an important border town where an international airport is being built.

Initial reactions to the attack were mixed. Lt. Gen. Piyawat Nakwanich, the army’s regional commander, at first suggested a crime syndicate may have been behind the attack.

But as the investigation unfolded and as more militant sources began to speak, the attack appeared to be part of the separatists’ strategy to undermine the security apparatus. It was, indeed, a stern statement to the Thai government that this road was not safe to travel.

To demonstrate they are not a bunch of misguided fanatics bent on racking up body counts, the militants, in this case, did not harm the passengers on the bus. The rebels stopped in-coming traffic so the passengers could cross the road, and they also helped older ones with their luggage.

It was their way of showing they respect certain boundaries, even though there are no written rules of engagement for the two warring sides.

Mop-up operation

The army responded to the arson attack two weeks later by carrying out a mop-up operation in Bunnang Sata district and nearby villages. By the time the operation ended, authorities rounded up 50 suspects.

Authorities said detainees provided valuable information. Relatives of the arrested huddled in front of holding centers, where their sons and husbands were locked up under martial law that permits detention without legal representation. With no access to the detainees, it was understandable that relatives feared the worse as many of those in custody had already been released.

Local and international human rights organizations have documented allegations of torture and abuse of detainees. But the authorities often dismiss such allegations without investigation, and the army has even threatened legal action against accusers.

Not all of the military personnel in the region agreed with the January mop-up operation. Some argued it would undermine the overall counter-insurgency effort aimed at winning support from Malay Muslims who make up more than 80 percent of the two million residents in the Deep South.

They were concerned that a blind sweep could be perceived by the militants as going overboard, and could provoke retaliation.

Their fears were realized on Jan. 22. An insurgent cell in Yala set off a vicious motorbike bomb at a market in Yala, killing three civilians, including an Islamic religious student.

The message to the Thai side was loud and clear: Your action has deadly consequences. In the end, a perceived violation by the army was answered with another violation by the rebels.

For observers of the conflict, the friendly conduct of the militants behind the bus attack and angry cell members behind the motorbike bomb seems to be a world apart. If anything, it reflected diverse views among the militants on the ground.

“It seems that some militants have no qualms about pushing the boundaries of what’s acceptable, while others believe humanitarian principles have to be respected,” said Artef Sohko, a political activist from The Patani, a civil society organization that promotes the right to self-determination for the people of this historically contested region.

While collateral damage does happen in this conflict and both sides can be blamed for these violations, it is very rare for militant cells to single out soft targets.

The last time a soft target was singled out for an attack in the far south was on Oct. 24, 2016, when a bomb went off at a nighttime food hawking area in the heart of Pattani, killing one person and injuring 18 other people.

That was retaliation against the rounding up of more than 100 Patani Malay youths and students living in Bangkok, some of whom claimed to have been beaten, militant sources said.

Since there are no written rules of engagement, it’s pretty much up to the two warring sides to decide where to draw a red line. What is clear is that retaliatory attacks against perceived violations have been deadly.

Insurgents dictate pace of violence

But it hasn’t stopped the Thai security forces from pushing the line with their operations in the field, not to mention other forms of harassment that push the residents even further from reconciling with the state.

Moreover, with no pressure to explain their conduct because policymakers and security planners in Bangkok have more important issues to attend to, the regional army command is left alone to construct its own narrative.

The military paints itself as morally superior to the insurgents because government officials are not behind the violence. It believes that the more insurgents resort to violence, the more they distance themselves from the community.

Officials often pointed to a steady drop in the number of violent acts in the Deep South since 2007, but separatist sources said the decision to reduce those incidents was theirs to make. In other words, the militants have been told to make their hits count, which mean greater intensity with each and every attack.

This is not to say that the military does not deserve any credit for bringing down the number of violent incidents. The decision to post paramilitary rangers in remote areas helped expand the security grid and improve response times.

Meanwhile, the movement has shown that militants can hit any place at any time, and even against targets outside of the traditional theater of violence. In their view, as long as the movement exists, the government can never claim victory.

Until someone can bring the two sides to reach an agreement the rules of engagement and tit-and-tat violence will go on with no end in sight.

Don Pathan is independent security analyst and a founding member of Patani Forum (www.pataniforum.com), a civil society organization dedicated to critical discussion on the conflict in Thailand’s southernmost provinces. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and not of BenarNews.

Confusion over confession by suspect

While Suthep says ex-ranger had admitted to his crime, Army official at crime scene denies development

By Don Pathan
The Nation

Confusion over whether a man suspected of a killing spree in Yala on Tuesday had confessed continued yesterday as Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban told reporters in Bangkok that a former paramilitary ranger had admitted to the crime. Authorities on the ground said interrogation of the suspect had yet to reach any conclusion.

Suthep was quoting Panu Uthairat, the director of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre.

Fourth Army chief LtGeneral Udomchai Thammasarotrat, meanwhile, said that the suspect was still being interrogated and that the authorities had yet to obtain a confession.

Udomchai said the use of martial law had been approved against the suspect, Bannang Sata resident Pirapan Pandam, 27, because the area where the killing spree had been carried out was an extremely restive one.

"It doesn't matter if the suspect is a Buddhist or a Muslim. I am here to uphold the law," Udomchai told The Nation in a telephone interview.

In Bangkok, Suthep was quick to distance the government from the case. He told reporters that the incident that caused the deaths of four people and injuries to 21 was not the work of government security officials. Neither was it the work of Malay Muslim separatists, whom authorities accuse of being behind most of the violence in the deep South, he said.

A senior government official in the region said Pirapan, along with three other alleged culprits, may have been motivated by the fact that his older brother, Sombat, 32, was shot and killed while on a hunting trip in the outback of Bannang Sata district on April 27.

According to the government official, Pirapan is being held at a ranger unit in Raman district in Yala.

Authorities had to act quickly for fear that the incident would prompt serious retaliation from insurgents, the source said.

Efforts are being carried out to convince militant cells in Bannang Sata not to retaliate against what was billed as an isolated incident, he added.

Sombat was killed along with his dog while reportedly on a hunting trip. A village elder living near where the killing took place said the victim was out to hunt for pangolin, an endangered anteater that is trafficked for illegal meat and medicine markets.

Sombat had been warned repeatedly that there were insurgents in the area but insisted on carrying on with his hunting trip, the elder said.

Local and international human rights organisations said progovernment death squads had been employed in the past to settle scores, but officials insisted that target killings of suspects were not government policy.

Martial law permits detention of a suspect for 10 days without formal charges.

Pirapan and three others on a pickup truck were accused of carrying out the killing spree. The suspects, all in hoods, used AK47 and M16 automatic rifles to attack a teashop, their first target, less than 200 metres from an army outpost.

The four gunmen hit five more targets, including a village grocery store, two young men sitting on a motorbike in front of a local Islamic school, and other passers by on the street.

Eyewitnesses who survived the teashop attack said the four culprits were all hooded and did not say a word to each other.

They also added that the fact that it took about an hour before the authorities showed up at the scene raised questions over their seriousness about tracking down the gunmen.